A Mead Project source page

Originally published as:

Editors' notes

This a paper has been included as part of the history of attitude
scaling. This is the first example we have been able to identify of the
"Likert-style" response. The paper, along with Rice's paper for
the Journal of the American Statistical Association published the same
month, defines the basic model for the distributional model of opinions
underlying — but correcting in — Thurstonian scaling

Related Documents

No links yet

Site Navigation

William Jennings Bryan as a Social Force

Malcolm M. Willey and Stuart Rice

IF IT BE admitted that any stimulus which causes activity on the part of
individuals in their group life is to be considered as a social force, it must
follow that an idea in the mind of a man is to be included in this category.
But, says Professor Giddings,

"A true and complete
description of anything must include measurements of it. . . . There has been a
good deal of unprecise talk among sociologists and social workers about `social
forces' . . Social forces there are; obvious in manifestation or detected by
accident, subtle in working or terrific in explosion, and so far known; hut they
are not yet brought within scientific description, certainly not within the
quantitative formulation characteristic of our familiar description of
thermo-dynamic, chemical, and electro-magnetic forces. . . . In measuring
.forces it is necessary to remember that it is impossible to measure them
directly. We can measure them only in terms of what they do. For ex-ample, the
kinetic energy of water falling from a height through a turbine, of an
uncoiling spring, of super-heated steam back of a .piston head, of an electric
cur-rent, is measured by the number of pounds it can lift one foot in one
second, or by any equivalent
work. The intellectual or moral force of a man is measureable to the
extent, and only to the extent, that he `does things,' which can be described in
terms of units of accomplishment."[1]

The difficulty of attempting to measure the force of an idea, though it has
the potentiality of being transformed into an important social stimulus, is
obvious. It is relatively easy to measure the amount of energy contained in a
ton of coal, but who would attempt to measure the amount of social energy
contained in the doctrines of a Karl Marx, whose theories have been
all-important in determining the trend of modern societal development? Perhaps
it is this difficulty that accounts for much of the speculative and
philosophical nature of the science of sociology at the present time.
Sociologists are willing to admit that advance in their field will come with the
application of more exacting methodology-possibly through statistical
research-and yet in this direction they have as yet accomplished but little.
Generalization has been all too unfounded; speculation has been rife-with the
result that while much theorizing has been done, tangible and substantiated
results are wanting in most instances. Attempts at exact measurement of social
forces, the writers feel, are urgently needed; and it is this belief which has
led them to offer the following as an effort in the direction indicated.

The ideas which in this experiment are being regarded as social forces center
themselves on the one hand in what is commonly known as "fundamentalism" and on
the other in what is usually referred to as the scientific movement. Perhaps the
most outstanding exponent and ardent advocate of the former is William J. Bryan.
Among the leading formulations of the scientific movement is the doctrine of
organic evolution. This is not the place to examine the essential contradictions
between fundamentalism and science, or to ask whether an opposition to the
doctrine of evolution is a necessary corollary to the fundamentalist beliefs. It
need only be pointed out that in Mr. Bryan's opinion the conflict exists. Thus,
in a recent exposition of fundamentalism he says:

I venture to assert that the
unproven hypothesis of evolution is the root cause of nearly all the dissention
within the church. . . . "Liberalism," however you define it, is built upon the
guess to which the euphonious name of "evolution" has been given.

And again :

The evolutionary hypothesis
is the only thing that has seriously menaced religion since the birth of Christ
and it menaces all other religions as well as the Christian religion, and
civilization as well as religion,-at least, this is the conviction of a
multitude who regard belief in God as the fundamental of all beliefs, and see in
Christ the hope of the future.[2]

When Mr. Bryan ventures, as he frequently does, to appear before a student
audience and to openly challenge the doctrines taught in the class room,
especially in the class rooms of the pure sciences, he is raising an issue which
has to be fought out in the minds of the young men and women who constitute his
audiences. Both Mr. Bryan and the teachers whom he thus directly challenges are
devoting themselves to the attempt to mould the beliefs of the students, and
having stated their cases, both sincerely hope that con-

(
339) -viction in the belief of their respective, and inherently
contradictory teachings will follow.

Such an occasion will therefore constitute a situation of the kind we have
described at the beginning of this paper : here is the impingement upon the
minds of individuals of two opposing forces each of which may rightly be called
a social force. The important question then becomes: what is the resultant ?

The opportunity to answer this question in a measure was presented to the
writers recently with Mr. Bryan's visit to Dartmouth College.[3]
This occasion was all the more unique since Dartmouth is the one college in this
country in which all students during their freshman year are required to take a
full semester course in evolution. The course covers the evidences for and
against the doctrine. It is to be assumed that at this one institution at least,
all members of the three upper classes have the background which would enable
them to weigh the arguments for and against opposing beliefs regarding man's
creation.

No visitor in recent years had been awaited with more expectancy at Dartmouth
than was Mr. Bryan. The topic of his talk, "Science vs Evolution," quite
naturally struck a responsive chord in the minds of the students. For a week
before his arrival the college paper, The Dartmouth, had been framing the
issue; and when Mr. Bryan actually appeared every available inch in the college
auditorium had been taken. For a week after he had gone, the problems which he
had raised were the chief topics of conversation whenever Dartmouth men came
together.

In an effort to measure the results of this unusual intellectual upheaval,
which obviously included not alone Mr. Bryan's address, but the subsequent
discussion as well, the writers submitted to their students the following
questionnaire, the introduction of which is intended to be a fair statement of
the generally accepted principles of the evolutionary point of view:

With reference to the
doctrine that man evolved from lower animal forms in harmony with general
principles of organic evolution :

1. I reject the doctrine
completely.2. While I do not reject it
completely I do not believe that the
evidence favors it.3. I am undecided whether to reject
or to accept it.4. While I do not accept it
completely I believe the evidence favors it.5. I accept the doctrine
completely.

Those students who heard Mr. Bryan were then asked to indicate which of these
statements coincided most nearly with their own beliefs both before and after
hearing Mr. Bryan. No class-room discussion was permitted until after the
questionnaires had been returned.

Among the students to whom this questionnaire was submitted and all of whom
had heard Mr. Bryan, were 39 members of the freshman class, none of whom
at the time had taken the compulsory course in evolution. The remainder,
numbering 136, were sophomores, juniors and seniors. While the number of cases,
a little less than 10 per cent of the entire student body, is not large it may
fairly be regarded as an adequate sample of the relatively homogenous college
enrollment.

The net results of Mr. Bryan's visit upon the minds of members of the three
upper classes may be summarized in the following table:

TABLE I NET EFFECT OF MR. BRYAN IN CHANGING BELIEFS AMONG SOPHOMORES, JUNIORS AND SENIORS

Belief, Refers to the five statem'nts in the question're

Before hearing
Mr. Bryan

After hearing
Mr. Bryan

Net change
in numbers

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

5

70

51.6

59

43.4

–

11

4

52

38.2

48

35.7

–

4

3

7

5.2

15

11

+

8

2

5

3.7

10

7.3

+

5

1

2

1.5

4

2.9

+

2

Total

136

100.2

136

100.3

Thus before hearing Mr. Bryan, 70 of the men in the above table accepted
without reservation the doctrine of organic evolution (Proposition 5). After
hearing him this number had been reduced to 59. Before the lecture only two of
these men rejected the doctrine completely; after, four men rejected it
completely, etc. The column of Net Change shows that a net number of 8 men who
were previously on the side of evolution were drawn to a position of doubt; and
7 others were drawn over to the side of non-acceptance.

Some facts of outstanding interest are observed when the above table is
compared with the similar returns obtained from the members of the freshman
class, who, it should be remembered, had not at the time taken the course in
evolution. The freshman table is as follows:

(340)

TABLE II NET EFFECT OF MR. BRYAN IN CHANGING BELIEFS AMONG FRESHMEN

Belief, Refers to the five statem'nts in the question're

Before hearing Mr. Bryan

After hearing Mr. Bryan

Net Change

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

in numbers

5

5

12.8

4

10.2

– 1

4

16

40.9

14

35.9

– 2

3

7

17.9

10

25.6

+ 3

2

6

15.4

6

15.4

0

1

5

12.8

5

12.8

0

Total

39

99.8

39

99.9

Before hearing Mr. Bryan, 5 members of the freshman group accepted without
reservation the doctrine of organic evolution. This number represents 12.8 per
cent of the entire freshman group as compared with 51.6 per cent holding similar
views in the upper-class group. Similarly, 5 members of the freshman group, 12.8
per cent, rejected the doctrine of evolution without qualifications before
hearing Mr. Bryan, as compared with 2 members in the upper-class group, or 1.5
per cent. After hearing Mr. Bryan the number of freshmen accepting the doctrine
completely had been reduced from 5 to 4, or to 10.2 per cent. the number
rejecting the doctrine completely remained as before, etc.

Here we may call attention to the first of the outstanding results of the
inquiry: Partly, it may be presumed, as a result of greater maturity, but in
greater part due to their familiarity with the principles of evolution acquired
in the compulsory course the percentage of students accepting the doctrine
without qualifications was four times greater in the sample representing the
upper classes than in the freshman group. Conversely, the percentages of
freshmen rejecting the doctrine completely was between eight and nine times as
great as the percentage of upper class-men. Moreover, the proportion of freshmen
who, while not rejecting the doctrine of evolution completely (before hearing
Mr. Bryan) nevertheless believed that what evidence they had did not favor it
was four times greater than in the cor-responding group representing the upper
class-men. Also, as might be expected, the freshman group neither accepting nor
rejecting the doctrine was' over three times as large proportionately as the
corresponding group representing the other classes.

Here, then, is one index of the change of ideas brought about as a result of
the impingement of the scientific paint of view upon the student mind. As an
indication of the change of ideas brought about by the opposing force
represented by Mr. Bryan, however, the above tables do not present a wholly
comprehensive summary. The extent of the change becomes clear only when a study
is made of the shifts of opinion of the individual men, rather than the net
results.

In the following table we have compared the actual number of shifts of
opinion indicated in our returns with the number of shifts which theoretically
might have occurred within the limited number of categories represented in the
questionnaire. For example (within the group of upper classmen) any of the 70
students who accepted Proposition 5 (complete acceptance of evolution)
theoretically might have shifted to a qualified belief in evolution, to
indecision, to qualified rejection or to total rejection, In any of these cases,
the shift would have been away from the evolutionist beliefs. He could
not in any case (within the categories laid down) have shifted to greater
adherence to the doctrine, for the formulation of the question itself would
pre-vent. Similarly, two men who were completely opposed to evolution might
become more favor-ably disposed to it, but could not reject it any more
completely. Obviously, the men in opinion classes 2, 3 and 4 might shift in
either direction. It will be clear to the reader that ratios between the numbers
of actual shifts and the numbers which are theoretically possible will provide
the soundest and most significant measures of the forces involved.

TABLE III COMPARISON OF ACTUAL WITH POSSIBLE SHIFTS IN OPINION — BY NUMBER AND PERCENT OF MEN INVOLVED

Direction of shift

Possible Changes
— Number

Actual Changes
—Number

Percent,
Actual of Possible

Upperclassmen

Toward evolution

66

5

7.6

Away from evolution

134

32

24.0

Either direction

136

37

27.9

Freshman

Toward evolution

34

4

11.8

Away from evolution

34

7

20.5

Either direction

39

11

28.2

This table gives us our second outstanding conclusion: The views of more than
one-quarter of Mr, Bryan's hearers were changed substantially as a result of his
discussion. Among the larger of the two groups represented in our table, nearly

(
341) one-quarter of the men who were not already complete disbelievers in
evolutionary doctrine were influenced in the direction which Mr. Bryan intended.

This does not mean, however, that these men were actually converted to Mr.
Bryan's views. Some of them (whose views before hearing Bryan were represented
by Proposition 2) were already disbelievers in evolution and were merely
strengthened in their disbelief, (and hence shifted to a belief in Proposition
1). Likewise, other men who accepted evolution completely before hearing him
afterward changed so that their positions coincided with Proposition 4, which is
still upon the side of evolution. A complete analysis of the figures makes it
necessary to determine how many of the students represented in the samples
shifted from acceptance of the doctrine in greater or less degree to a position
of uncertainty and how many to a position of rejection in greater or less degree
; how many from the position of uncertainty to positions of rejection and
acceptance; and how many from positions of rejection to positions of acceptance
or uncertainty. This is shown in the following table.

TABLE IV NUMBER OF CONVERSIONS TO AND FROM ACCEPTANCE, UNCERTAINTY
AND REJECTION, WITH PERCENTAGES OF ENTIRE NUMBER IN EACH SAMPLE SO CONVERTED

Upperclassmen

Freshmen

No.

Pct

No.

Pct.

Acceptance to uncertainty

12

8.8

6

15.4

Acceptance to rejection

4

2.9

0

0.0

Uncertainty to rejection

3

2.2

1

2.5

Uncertainty to acceptance

1

.07

2

5.1

Rejection to acceptance

0

0.0

1

2.5

Rejection to uncertainty

0

0.0

0

0.0

Unconverted in any category

116

85.4

29

74.5

Total

136

100.0

39

100.0

Thus, 8.8 per cent of the upperclassmen shifted their position from complete
or partial acceptance to a position of uncertainty, etc. From this table it is
again clear that the shift in opinion is in the direction of Bryan doctrine,
although reversals of opinion are relatively few.

A third conclusion which may be derived from our analysis, therefore, is that
Mr. Bryan's appearance on the Dartmouth campus served not so much to create
converts as to arouse an attitude of skepticism or caution toward the deductions
of the classroom. Whether or not this effect is transitory or permanent is of
course not made evident.

It is obvious that the changes cited above have been arrived at in a manner
almost mechanical, and in no way show what occurred in the minds of the
students. Interesting as are these tables it is equally clear that their value
would be enhanced if they were supplemented by data of a qualitative nature. In
the attempt to get at the mental processes involved, the students were
re-quested to append to each questionnaire an anonymous statement giving the
writer's impressions of Mr. Bryan and his arguments, We now turn to a general
appraisal of these replies:

The first conclusion to be drawn from this qualitative data is that many of
the students who were unqualified adherents to the doctrine of evolution before
hearing Mr. Bryan were re-enforced in their convictions, even though our
questionnaire did not permit them to express a quantitative change of opinion in
the direction of increased intensity of belief. Thus, in several instances men
who recorded themselves as accepting Proposition 5 before, attempted to indicate
still greater conviction afterward by recording their beliefs as 5 + or 6, even
though this was not permissible within the framework of the questionnaire.
Moreover, such comments as the following indicate inclination of the same kind :[4]

The more he talks the better for evolutionary doctrine.

When analyzed (his) statements were so obviously untrue or senseless that
they resulted against rather than for his point.

It seems to me that Bryan
would throw most students (who are) on the fence to the side of evolution with
his old-fashioned ideas of hard-boiled religion, for that is the way I
interpreted his religion.

Bryan only strengthened my
firm belief in evolution. It is a great satisfaction to know from personal
observation that the great opponent of creative evolution is only a garrulous
old man.

It must be admitted that there were a few indications of shifts in the
opposite direction by men whose opinions had not undergone any formal change
according to our classification.

The second conclusion to be drawn from this qualitative data is that there
was almost general

(
342) agreement upon the excellence of Mr. Bryan's oratory. Even the most
convinced evolutionists among his hearers were frank to express their admiration
in this regard. But a third conclusion represents an antithesis to this : there
was likewise almost general agreement, even among those who held to his point of
view, that Mr. Bryan's argument against evolution did not constitute an example
of what to them seemed rational thinking.

These conclusions may be illustrated by the following citations. The first
are from the comments of upperclassmen who both before and after hearing Mr.
Bryan were unqualified adherents to the views which he attacked :

Bryan is a silver-tongued
orator and held the audience not so much by the stating of facts as by ability,
taught by long experience, to keep the audience in the proper frame of mind.

Mr. Bryan is a wonderful
orator. He got himself out of many a hole through the use of his wit, humor and
evasion.

In my opinion, Bryan is a
wonderful orator ; he has the power to please an audience and arouse their
emotions, but these two things do not make him a scientist.

With regard to his argument,
we may set in opposition to these citations the comments of freshmen (presumably
the least mature of the two groups of students) who, before hearing Bryan, were
unqualified disbelievers in evolution :

I was very disappointed in
Mr. Bryan; although he gave his speech very well his argument, examples and
references were not good or sound.

I admire the way he upheld
the old sound home teachings about religion. The world needs a little more
religion in its makeup. However, I do not think he proved anything except his
ability to talk.

Throughout the comments, in fact, the evidence shows that the students almost
without exception were able to discriminate between Mr. Bryan's oratorical
ability and the logic that he employed. They did not allow his skill in the
former to becloud their capacity to think upon the subject in hand. This
conclusion may seem in-consistent with the facts, previously pointed out, that
many of Mr. Bryan's listeners were changed in their beliefs after hearing him.
We can do no more than to point out that where this inconsistency existed, it
was usually recognized by the students themselves : Thus,

Bryan is without doubt a
great orator and it was his oratory rather than his evidence against evolution
that somewhat swayed my opinion.

I do not think that he proved
anything. He made me, however, undecided as to the true origin of man.

All of his arguments, I
thought, were poor, as they did neither break down the ideas of evolution nor
build something better in its place. He did, though, make me undecided.

Now, coming back to the previous point, the following citations give
additional evidence of the student's ability to distinguish oratory from reason.

He was very clever to bring
in ridicule all through the talk, hut I think he rather evaded the issue. . . .
In short Bryan did not prove any facts for religion nor did he disprove any of
the facts of evolution. He was very interesting but hardly instructive.

His speech, which was well
delivered, was poor in itself and outside of its emotional appeal very
unconvincing. No one would worry about the so-called danger to religion a minute
if he had read the speech in a book and not heard Bryan deliver it.

He seemed to me to obscure
the real and essential paints under a cloud of ridicule and raillery that no
doubt pleased the audience but in no way changed our opinions.

Bryan was extremely unfair in
his whole argument. In the first place he gave the college to understand that
his topic was "Science vs Evolution." He knew that he could not get an
audience if he had announced that he was to give only the theological arguments
against evolution, so he stated that he would combat it from the standpoint of
science.

He really proved nothing.
Whenever a point arose which tended toward a decisive argument for his opponents
he dodged it completely,

His arguments were weak and
poorly founded. He seemed to be ridiculing evolution, not arguing against it ;
or probably he considers this a good way of arguing against it.

Bryan said: "Why base your
philosophy of life on a theory you can't prove?" Great Caesar ! Is there
any-thing more impossible of proof than the Bible itself and the whole story it
tells, both in the old and new testaments?

Vituperation and wit are poor
and surely non-convincing substitutions for criticism and argument.

He indulged too much in
sarcasm and used wit rather than reason to "get across" to his audience.

Instead of trying to bring up
the most salient points of conflict between the fundamentalist and evolutionist
points of view, he resorted for the most part to ridicule and sarcasm, at which
he is master, but which proves nothing.

He does not seem able to get
right dawn to hard cold facts. He is forever wandering about giving little
examples that the people think are very good at the time .. (but which later one
realizes) are rather weak.

All of these quotations in one way or another seem to indicate that the
students possess intellectual honesty to a considerable degree, a fact

(
343) that is further made evident in the following quotations :

He said that a belief in
evolution made one agnostic, Even if this were true, its teaching should not be
for-bidden. How about the search for truth and freedom of speech?

He claimed to have an
argument between religion and evolution, Can there be an argument between
intelligence and emotion, between fact and feeling?

His whole argument seems to
be, "Evolution is wrong because it tends to undermine our faith in God," which
after all is no argument at all. It is like saying "Evolution is wrong because
it is wrong.'

He said that evolution tends
to destroy one's belief in a God, especially in a personal God, and that is
true; nevertheless, that is a pretty weak argument that evolution is wrong. I
had rather laugh at the Bible and believe in evolution than accept
unquestioningly a piece of fiction as the truth ! How can we accept a thing as
true if it will not bear scientific investigation? We have got our minds to
think with. Why not try to use them once in a while instead of following a fool
like Bryan who says his heart tells him that God is there. He'd better have his
heart examined,

Some inkling as to the causes which led more than one-quarter of the men to
change their opinions after hearing Mr. Bryan is disclosed in the following
citations, which have been pre-faced with numerals referring to the propositions
in the questionnaire, thus indicating the change which occurred.

(5-4) Although Bryan failed
to win me over to his side completely he caused me to reconsider the whole
matter and it is through this reconsideration that I in-tend to draw my final
conclusion.

(5-4) He did succeed in
showing me that the theory (of evolution) was not absolutely proven, and that
there are many loop-holes in it, but he did not succeed in making me give up the
theory.

(5-4) He opened up a new door
of thought on this subject which I haven't fathomed yet.

(5-4) He did leave me with
the impression that evolution had not as yet been proven as fact, but that it is
the result of logical reasoning and experimentation.

(5-4) He did not state facts
and therefore I do not believe that he proved anything. However, by his
sincerity and masterful oratory he brought back to me the feeling that religion
holds a very important place in life and is essential to harmony and human
welfare. It is this fact which makes me doubt whether evolution is correct in
every detail or not.

(5-4) His argument concerning
the missing link in the origin of species seemed to me a very strong one.

(5-3) I was impressed by the
way he emphasized the fact that it (evolution) was a guess.

(4-5) Under the stimulus of
Bryan I really looked into the theory of evolution and was more firmly convinced
that it is correct.

(4-5) His feeble attempt
convinced me more than ever that evolution was indisputable,

(4-3) He clearly showed that
the "facts" of evolution were based merely on resemblances.

(4-2) Bryan's argument cast
enough suspicion on the evidence supporting evolution, to make me feel that it
was no harder to believe in the miracles of Christ than it was to believe that
man was descended from lower life.

(4-2) Bryan convinced me that
there was something more to the evolution of man than the mere Darwinian theory.

In view of Mr. Bryan's statement that the chief cause of the antagonism
between fundamentalism and evolution lies in the fact that the acceptance of
evolutionist doctrines almost inevitably under-mines the Christian faith, it is
interesting to read some of the comments of the students upon this point. They
are by no means in agreement. The following statements are made by some of those
who with Bryan hold to the irreconcilability of the two doctrines :

(5-5) I have lost a great
deal of the inborn faith at college and I lost some of it in evolution. If this
is a menace, why not "put the label" on the course as Bryan suggested, give
everyone the facts at the start, and part of Darwin's life. Then teach the
course. We will be prepared.

(5-4) I do believe, as he
does, that the theories of evolution are degrading to religion, It has expelled
a good many of my former beliefs from my mind.

(5-3) One thing which he said
was true—evolution has killed any spiritual God that I used to believe in.

(4-4) He had one good
argument and that was that evolution in most cases is ruining the students'
religion and ultimately lowering their morality. . . . A person should have some
sort of religion and this fact must be met in some way.

(3-4) I remain or am
confirmed in my agnostic beliefs.

(4-4) When he says that
evolution undermines religion, I agree with him completely. And no greater
catastrophe could happen to our nation. But Mr, Bryan is not open-minded enough
to take into consideration that the facts point to the acceptance of the theory
of evolution no matter how distasteful they may appear.

As against this point of view may be cited an even larger number of cases in
which the entire compatibility of a belief in evolution with a religious belief
is stoutly maintained :

(5-5) My experience has been
that before I took evolution I was an agnostic. Evolution brought my religion
back. To me it is a most Christian doctrine and in no way incompatible with
religion. It made religion real to me-a scientific reality at the basis of
everything.

(5-5) He did say one thing
that I agree with, and that

(
344)

is, we should come nearer to
God and believe in Him more fully. But the question with me is, which form of
belief, Bryan's or the evolutionists', leads us nearer to God? I believe the
latter by all means, if it is taught in the right way.

(5-5) Bryan believes that man
cannot believe in God and evolution. He believes in Gad as a static influence
and that the world is making no improvement. This does not agree with my point
of view that God is a constructive influence and that evolution tells of the
improvement of both men and animals.

(5-5) He does not seem to
realize the fact that evolution stops at a certain point and that evolutionists
call from then on upon some force-"and whether we call it God or anything
else-what's the difference?"

(5-5) The fact that so many
ministers accept the doctrine contradicts Bryan's doctrine that evolution is
destroying Christianity.

(5-5) He proved that some
professors who believe in evolution were agnostics but that does not prove that
the average person who accepts the general theory would become an agnostic.
Might not the professors become agnostic because of their scientific attitudes
in general and not just through evolution?

(5-5) His major premise
seemed to be-evolution destroys Christianity and Christianity is necessary in
this world. I believe that this is false. Evolution may destroy the creeds and
dogmatic codes of the old religion but out of it will grow a rational religion
based on fact and intelligence and reason and love of humanity. This religion
will be a much better one than the old, narrow, bigoted one of the past.

(4-5) I believe he is
absolutely wrong in saying that acceptance of the doctrine of evolution destroys
the Christian principles of morals and liberty. It makes my faith in the
heavenly power stronger.

(2-2) It seems to me that
evolution augments the facts given in the Bible. It teaches that the world was
created in six periods of time, not stating how long. Evolution tells us how it
was done.

We believe that the data which has been summarized above, both in its
quantitative and its qualitative aspects, presents a fair picture of the results
of Mr. Bryan's appeal, regarded as a social force, upon a relatively small,
self-contained, homogeneous and critical student body. The results of the same
farce upon American society in general will be different to the extent that it
differs in its psychological constitution from the group dealt with.

Our study shows the strength of the scientific farce against the opposing
impetus of fundamentalism. (Four-fifths of the Dartmouth upperclassmen remained
under the sway of the former). We cannot assume that a similar immediate
resultant would be found in society at large. Nevertheless, the history of
thought shows that the masses of men ultimately take their views from the
educated groups. The world today accepts the doctrines of Galileo even though
the masses of men could not prove them; it does so because these doctrines
gained the universal acceptance of educated men. Because Mr. Bryan has raised
the issue between fundamental-ism and science, the great public now for the
first time is called upon to pass judgment. For the first time the masses are
becoming aware of the views of science upon the problems involved. As long as
the issue was not raised, but not longer, was it possible for "water-tight
compartments" to exist side by side in the social mind. With the issue now
squarely placed before it, there is ample historical precedent for the
assumption that the doctrine of evolution will in time be universally accepted
by the public.

Notes

The Measurement of Social Forces. Journal of Social Forces,
Vol. I, No. I.

The Forum, July 1921.

December 8, 1923.

All of the citations which follow in this, article are presented with a
conscious effort to represent fairly the various points of view which were
disclosed. While the writers have not "stacked" these citations so as to achieve
an unwarranted effect, they have taken particular pains to represent adequately
all opinions favorable to Mr. Bryan's views. The qualitative material which
appears below is, if anything, weighted in that direction.

The original published version of this document is in the public domain. The Mead Project exercises no copyrights over the original text.

This page and related Mead Project pages constitute the personal web-site
of Dr. Lloyd Gordon Ward (retired), who is responsible for its content.
Although the Mead Project continues to be presented through the
generosity of Brock University, the contents of this page do not reflect
the opinion of Brock University. Brock University is not responsible for
its content.

Fair Use Statement:

Scholars are permitted to reproduce this material for personal use.
Instructors are permitted to reproduce this material for educational use by
their students.

Otherwise, no part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, for the purpose of profit or personal benefit, without written permission from the Mead Project. Permission is granted for inclusion of the electronic text of these pages, and their related images in any index that provides free access to its listed documents.